John LeClair was a pretty damn good passenger when he was scoring 50 goals. Simon Gagne was often a passenger during his primes years. You don't necessarily have to be the guy driving the play to be a good scorer in this league.

LeClair was only a passenger because he had Lindros on his line. He was damned fine on his own when Lindros was out and he had to step up, too.

Also, you've listed wingers. Schenn was expected to be a center. "Passenger" isn't a good trait for a center. It works at wing, but you need the center to be in a bit more control than that since it's a more important position.

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.

Schenn was actually very good at zone entries on the powerplay. He was about the only guy getting anything done on that second unit during the Rangers series.

Regardless, you really want to argue that he couldn't easily have assumed Hartnell's spot on that unit? The guy was useless in that hole all year.

Not exactlly. True he didn't produce much but what you have to take into account his presence. That shot of hartnell's in the slot was the 1 thing pk's took away from the flyers, but in doing so you also give giroux a ton of time and space in the process. Notice our pp is very set in its positioning. I believe this is what they want and hartnell's presence is important in setting that up. If they crowd giroux too much and hartnell is open he showed he will bury that with regularity and if not you have simmer crashing the net for a rebound.

LeClair was only a passenger because he had Lindros on his line. He was damned fine on his own when Lindros was out and he had to step up, too.

Also, you've listed wingers. Schenn was expected to be a center. "Passenger" isn't a good trait for a center. It works at wing, but you need the center to be in a bit more control than that since it's a more important position.

I've wanted him at wing for a while now on Giroux's wing. I think that's where he's best suited. But, the coaching staff seems stuck on keeping him at center. If he stays at center, then he really needs a guy like Voracek on his wing. Schenn is a positional scorer. He's not burning anyone up the middle with three or four dangles. He's going to get the majority of his points off quick, poistional plays like the way he set up the Simmonds goal in game 6, or the Voracek goal in game 4.

LeClair was only a passenger because he had Lindros on his line. He was damned fine on his own when Lindros was out and he had to step up, too.

Also, you've listed wingers. Schenn was expected to be a center. "Passenger" isn't a good trait for a center. It works at wing, but you need the center to be in a bit more control than that since it's a more important position.

"Passenger" is a trait you just made up. What does it even mean, he's not a good possession player? He's the best we have in the top 6 not named Giroux and Voracek. He drove more plays on his line than either of Simmonds or Vinny who couldn't carry the puck more than 10 feet. He's good at finding space between defenders and maneuvering the puck there. He's good at setting plays up.

You know you're just making ******** up to discredit objective facts. Oh, his points weren't as good as other people's points because I say so. Great argument.

Go through all of his points this year, I guarantee he's an integral part of most of them, he didn't have the linemates to carry the play of a puck he just happened to touch.

Not exactlly. True he didn't produce much but what you have to take into account his presence. That shot of hartnell's in the slot was the 1 thing pk's took away from the flyers, but in doing so you also give giroux a ton of time and space in the process. Notice our pp is very set in its positioning. I believe this is what they want and hartnell's presence is important in setting that up. If they crowd giroux too much and hartnell is open he showed he will bury that with regularity and if not you have simmer crashing the net for a rebound.

Hartnell didn't bury anything with regularity this year. Giroux gave him pass after pass in the slot, only to have his shot blocked or miss the net with regularity.

Either way, I'm not seeing anything to indicate that Schenn is going to be the answer to our second line issues like he was supposed to be. Whether he is moved to wing or stays at center, other moves via draft, trade or FA need to happen to fix the second line. Either by getting a real 2C who isn't going to be injured the whole year or getting him a playmaking winger.

Either way, I'm not seeing anything to indicate that Schenn is going to be the answer to our second line issues like he was supposed to be. Whether he is moved to wing or stays at center, other moves via draft, trade or FA need to happen to fix the second line. Either by getting a real 2C who isn't going to be injured the whole year or getting him a playmaking winger.

Well I don't agree about Schenn, but we have a pretty simple solution for the 2nd line troubles: just move Voracek down, he would be the perfect complement to Schenn (or Vinny if we put Schenn on G's wing). It's such an obvious solution, it's amazing Berube hasn't tried it yet. It would really complete that line and make it an actual threat while giving it more speed and defensive ability. It forces teams to either focus on the Giroux line and give Voracek's line more space, or to try to contain both and let Giroux have more room than he has now.

Berube makes it way too easy to shut us down by putting Giroux and Voracek on the same line. Shut them down, and it's not hard to contain the other poorly constructed lines.

Do you think he's going to be a first line center anywhere in the league, much less Philly?

55 points puts him in the top 30 in scoring in every year easily. With good wingers, minutes more pp time and all that, there's zero doubt he can be. As I said before the team has some people who drive the play, a team also needs complimentary point producers and that's Schenn. Whether he does that at the wing or at center is an entirely different discussion.

Honestly he was on pace for 50 for a large portion of this season then hit a wall towards the end (I think that's where him playing in his first full season comes to play). I still think he can be a 50 pt guy in the next couple yrs even with the limited minutes/pp opportunities he's been given. That production whether he's driving the play or someone else is, is nothing to scoff at.

Yeah, but there's a huge difference between getting 60 points while leading the charge, or 60 points while being a passenger.

If he gets a couple more minutes at ES centering the second line (sans Lecavalier and Simmonds), then he won't be considered a passenger.

I'm not even talking about putting him at 1LW which is the most sensible thing to do. A simple increase in ice time with a better line construction would do wonders for him. Then giving him Hartnell's spot on PP1? I mean, everyone's a passenger when Giroux is running the PP, but if we use his skill set properly, he can be driver.

He put up 40+ points being used in possibly the worst setting for him. JVR in 2011-12 was a passenger. Yet JVR in Toronto in 2012-13 was a driver with little observable development in his game. I can't stress enough how important a player's role is to his production.

[b]"Passenger" is a trait you just made up. What does it even mean, he's not a good possession player? He's the best we have in the top 6 not named Giroux and Voracek. He drove more plays on his line than either of Simmonds or Vinny who couldn't carry the puck more than 10 feet. He's good at finding space between defenders and maneuvering the puck there. He's good at setting plays up.

You know you're just making ******** up to discredit objective facts. Oh, his points weren't as good as other people's points because I say so. Great argument.

Go through all of his points this year, I guarantee he's an integral part of most of them, he didn't have the linemates to carry the play of a puck he just happened to touch.

Passenger isn't a term I've made up. I've seen it used before to describe many other players. It's synonymous with complimentary player. Many a person, from posters here to media members, use it.

He's not a good possession player. He's crap in board battles, gets stopped and turns it over at the blue line nonstop, and gets knocked off the puck really easily. Couturier and Read are both far better than Schenn. Raffl at his best is as well.

What objective facts? How about the objective fact that Schenn's Corsi stat, a measure of possession as well as ability to generate shot attempts, is 4th worst among the forward group while facing easy competition, and even with favorable zone starts? The numbers confirm what I'm seeing, that Schenn is a crappy possession player. Crappy possession players don't have much impact unless someone else does the work for them.

Either way, it all points to what I've been saying: That Schenn looks very likely to fall flat of what we needed him to be when he was acquired, and that is a big problem that needs fixing if this team wants to compete.

Passenger isn't a term I've made up. I've seen it used before to describe many other players. It's synonymous with complimentary player. Many a person, from posters here to media members, use it.

He's not a good possession player. He's crap in board battles, gets stopped and turns it over at the blue line nonstop, and gets knocked off the puck really easily. Couturier and Read are both far better than Schenn. Raffl at his best is as well.

What objective facts? How about the objective fact that Schenn's Corsi stat, a measure of possession as well as ability to generate shot attempts, is 4th worst among the forward group while facing easy competition, and even with favorable zone starts? The numbers confirm what I'm seeing, that Schenn is a crappy possession player. Crappy possession players don't have much impact unless someone else does the work for them.

Either way, it all points to what I've been saying: That Schenn looks very likely to fall flat of what we needed him to be when he was acquired, and that is a big problem that needs fixing if this team wants to compete.

I don't have the time to address the rest right now, but I just wanted to make this point: Doesn't Couturier fill that need? With him there, it allows Schenn to fill a more complementary role.

Passenger isn't a term I've made up. I've seen it used before to describe many other players. It's synonymous with complimentary player. Many a person, from posters here to media members, use it.

He's not a good possession player. He's crap in board battles, gets stopped and turns it over at the blue line nonstop, and gets knocked off the puck really easily. Couturier and Read are both far better than Schenn. Raffl at his best is as well.

What objective facts? How about the objective fact that Schenn's Corsi stat, a measure of possession as well as ability to generate shot attempts, is 4th worst among the forward group while facing easy competition, and even with favorable zone starts? The numbers confirm what I'm seeing, that Schenn is a crappy possession player. Crappy possession players don't have much impact unless someone else does the work for them.

Either way, it all points to what I've been saying: That Schenn looks very likely to fall flat of what we needed him to be when he was acquired, and that is a big problem that needs fixing if this team wants to compete.

Schenn's line was a hodgepodge of terrible possession players all year. Any three of Lecavalier, Hartnell, Simmonds, and Schenn were the second line all year. Who is to blame there? I think the former three are all worse 5v5 players than Schenn.

Not to absolve him of all blame, but when you don't utilize a player's skill set to your advantage, we should not be surprised with the results. The reality is that our wingers in general are weak 5v5. The only one's I have confidence in are Read and Voracek. But giving them to Schenn means leaving Giroux alone and/or isolating Couturier on our shutdown line.

So that brings us back to the sensible solution: Schenn-Giroux-Voracek. Why it isn't obvious to those in charge is mind numbing to me.

I don't have the time to address the rest right now, but I just wanted to make this point: Doesn't Couturier fill that need? With him there, it allows Schenn to fill a more complementary role.

No, the problem as I see it is that we only have two really effective centers, and that's not enough.

Again, I don't actually want Schenn run out of town (MY CALLS FOR HIM TO RETIRE STAND ). I just want to figure out what he's good at and where he fits so we can start addressing whatever needs that might create or make clear.

Edit: Eh, I guess 2.5 effective centers. Hall is like...halfwayish effective at what he does.

Schenn's line was a hodgepodge of terrible possession players all year. Any three of Lecavalier, Hartnell, Simmonds, and Schenn were the second line all year. Who is to blame there? I think the former three are all worse 5v5 players than Schenn.

Not to absolve him of all blame, but when you don't utilize a player's skill set to your advantage, we should not be surprised with the results. The reality is that our wingers in general are weak 5v5. The only one's I have confidence in are Read and Voracek. But giving them to Schenn means leaving Giroux alone and/or isolating Couturier on our shutdown line.

So that brings us back to the sensible solution: Schenn-Giroux-Voracek. Why it isn't obvious to those in charge is mind numbing to me.

This is becoming a common refrain in the last few seasons, I've noticed.

Passenger isn't a term I've made up. I've seen it used before to describe many other players. It's synonymous with complimentary player. Many a person, from posters here to media members, use it.

He's not a good possession player. He's crap in board battles, gets stopped and turns it over at the blue line nonstop, and gets knocked off the puck really easily. Couturier and Read are both far better than Schenn. Raffl at his best is as well.

What objective facts? How about the objective fact that Schenn's Corsi stat, a measure of possession as well as ability to generate shot attempts, is 4th worst among the forward group while facing easy competition, and even with favorable zone starts? The numbers confirm what I'm seeing, that Schenn is a crappy possession player. Crappy possession players don't have much impact unless someone else does the work for them.

Either way, it all points to what I've been saying: That Schenn looks very likely to fall flat of what we needed him to be when he was acquired, and that is a big problem that needs fixing if this team wants to compete.

Nearly every argument you're making against him seem to be great reasons why just sticking him at 1st line LW would be a good decision. All the things he's good at are needed on the 1st line and everything he seems to be lacking in right now are things that Giroux and Voracek are great at. I know I've said this before, but I'm still fairly optimistic about him. I think the problem right now is he's been on lines with people who are bad at even strength (Hartnell, Lecavelier, Simmonds) so he's being asked to do too much and carry a line by himself. He's too young and inexperienced to do that right now so he needs to be on a line where he's not the lead. Give him time to become more consistent where he just has to focus on himself and not carrying other players. I understand what you're saying about him being a passenger and that he hasn't really shown flashes of brilliance yet, but I still think there's time and if he's put in the situation he might put it all together.

He put up 40+ points being used in possibly the worst setting for him.

disagree
he's playing with quality players-we're not the fla panthers
he's playing on a second line that doesn't get nearly the defensive focus that 28's line gets
he played at centre most of the season, his "natural" position

and the real issue, as address above is: do we need another 2nd line centre or not? it ain't vinny, and it's an important position.

disagree
he's playing with quality players-we're not the fla panthers
he's playing on a second line that doesn't get nearly the defensive focus that 28's line gets
he played at centre most of the season, his "natural" position

and the real issue, as address above is: do we need another 2nd line centre or not? it ain't vinny, and it's an important position.

Simmonds was the only quality player he played with and 2Cs get more then 16 minutes a game. He produced at the lower level of the 2C tier dispite that while playing a quarter of the season on Vinny's wing.

His production is not something you can argue.

Schenn played the role of 3C this yr. Ice time and importance to the team are what determine that stuff not poster on HF who want to label him as a 2C.

disagree
he's playing with quality players-we're not the fla panthers
he's playing on a second line that doesn't get nearly the defensive focus that 28's line gets
he played at centre most of the season, his "natural" position

and the real issue, as address above is: do we need another 2nd line centre or not? it ain't vinny, and it's an important position.

Okay, "worst setting possible" is an exaggeration. I'll admit that. But to say he was used appropriately is equally unfair.

Simmonds is a fan favorite, and I love what he brings to the team, but he is not an offensive weapon 5v5. He doesn't have the instincts; he needs things to be mapped out for him like on the PP. He isn't the smartest or most creative player, and that is such an ugly contrast for Schenn's skill set.

Hartnell is slightly more offensively aware at even strength, but he's not any easier a player to read. It's difficult for even Giroux to play with him 5v5. We shouldn't expect it to be any easier for Schenn.

The above two players need to be on checking lines. Lines that dump the puck, hit the defenders, grind the battle on the wall, cycle the puck, get a shot, then backcheck like crazy to disrupt the opponent in transition.

This is not the game BSchenn should be playing.

As for Lecavalier, I don't think I need to explain how difficult he was to play with this year. Even Berube understood that by the last quarter of the year.

At this point, I really don't even know what Schenn can and can't do well.

He's not particularly fast or quick

He's not good on the boards or good at winning puck battles. Actually I'd say he's awful at this aspect

He has an average shot

He has average hands and passing skills

He's not good at faceoffs

He's below average defensively

He's got very little creativity and hockey IQ

I feel like the kid could be a decent complimentary winger on a line with at least one alpha that can excel at possessing the puck and making creative plays.

If the question is: does he stay or does he go? Then the answer needs to be that it depends on how they are going to use him. At this point theres little to indicate he's going to carry his own line offensively or defensively. I say use him on G's wing with Voracek or move him.

Schenn played the role of 3C this yr. Ice time and importance to the team are what determine that stuff not poster on HF who want to label him as a 2C.

doesn't your last sentence paint you as a hypocrite if you are trying to label him as a 3rd line centre and not a 2nd?
ice time/importance is a coin flip is you look at his line vs. #14's

regardless it doesn't matter how anyone wants to label him
if he's not the man for the job in one of the positions down the middle, then who is? I don't think anyone wants Vinny there.
Is that a glaring hole? Can you put #93 on his wing?
Will that affect #28-assuming that #19 isn't with him anymore either?

lots of questions about this roster, seems like we have plenty of square pegs and only round holes to fill...

At this point, I really don't even know what Schenn can and can't do well.

He's not particularly fast or quick

He's not good on the boards or good at winning puck battles. Actually I'd say he's awful at this aspect

He has an average shot

He has average hands and passing skills

He's not good at faceoffs

He's below average defensively

He's got very little creativity and hockey IQ

I feel like the kid could be a decent complimentary winger on a line with at least one alpha that can excel at possessing the puck and making creative plays.

If the question is: does he stay or does he go? Then the answer needs to be that it depends on how they are going to use him. At this point theres little to indicate he's going to carry his own line offensively or defensively. I say use him on G's wing with Voracek or move him.

What's your definition of average in all this? Average NHL player? Second liner? 22 year old?

I don't think you give him enough credit. He's not particularly quick, but he's one of the faster players on our team. He's got above average hands and some very underrated passing as well. He's not great along the boards but he's good at stealing pucks which might translate to better board work when he adds some more muscle. His shot is definitely above average, we just need to give him someone who can actually pass the puck so he can utilize it.

Board work, faceoffs and defensive play will all come as he gains experience and adds muscle.

The last part I agree with and I think so does everyone here: he needs to play with at least one of Giroux or Voracek. He's got a knack for finding open ice, but we don't give him anybody to play with that can find him with the puck. It's ridiculous, almost as bad as how Lavi had Couts stuck with 4th liners. The 2nd line was a mismatched travesty, full of finishers and nothing else. The 2nd line was probably Berube's biggest mistake, even worse than the Mez/Gus/Grossmann fiasco.

doesn't your last sentence paint you as a hypocrite if you are trying to label him as a 3rd line centre and not a 2nd?
ice time/importance is a coin flip is you look at his line vs. #14's

How is it a coin flip?

He produced as a 2C while being the 3C (in terms of ice time and value to the team as I said). Couts averaged 4 more minutes a game and was lined up against opposing teams top producing centers nightly in a defensive role. That defensive role on this team when compared to the offensive role Schenn played is more important (Flyers were 8th in GF/G and 20th in GA/G).

Couts' role was more important to the team and he played substantially more virtually every game. Those things can't be argued.

At this point, I really don't even know what Schenn can and can't do well.

He's not particularly fast or quick

He's not good on the boards or good at winning puck battles. Actually I'd say he's awful at this aspect

He has an average shot

He has average hands and passing skills

He's not good at faceoffs

He's below average defensively

He's got very little creativity and hockey IQ

I feel like the kid could be a decent complimentary winger on a line with at least one alpha that can excel at possessing the puck and making creative plays.

If the question is: does he stay or does he go? Then the answer needs to be that it depends on how they are going to use him. At this point theres little to indicate he's going to carry his own line offensively or defensively. I say use him on G's wing with Voracek or move him.

Look at all the * you have listed. You basically are calling him a below Average player. He has to be better than that. He played on a line with Vinny who was just awful this season and still scored 41 points. I think he has one of the better shots on the team. Besides say, Vinny, Read, and Giroux who has a better shot than him? I am not sure how someone would find out (Paging Appleyard) but I would venture to say as a top 9 forward he was probably better than average offensively.

As far as his defense I do not think it is as bad as everyone is making it out to be. I think he is closer to average than closer to below average. Look at his advanced numbers, both Schenn and Simmonds were clearly brought down by how bad Vinny was. And they would both be considered pretty close to average defensively.

Again, I am not saying that I think Schenn is a great player. I think he had a decent season. If he was say 25-29 I would say yeah lets trade him he isn't getting better. But he is a 22 year old 40 point center essentially playing 3C minutes. Adam Hall, Vinny L, Rinaldo, and the Collection of 4th line leftovers Rosehill, VandeVelde, McGinn, Newbury were all such negative players at even strength, that they have to be the first place to look at upgrading.